PedroArocena.com

Steve Jobs Dies at Age 56: 1955-2011

Matt Chan — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 23:51:37 +0000

Unbelievably sad and terrible news to report: legendary Apple leader and tech visionary Steve Jobs has died. The following statement has been issued by the Apple Board of Directors:

We are deeply saddened to announce that Steve Jobs passed away today.

Steve’s brilliance, passion and energy were the source of countless innovations that enrich and improve all of our lives. The world is immeasurably better because of Steve.

His greatest love was for his wife, Laurene, and his family. Our hearts go out to them and to all who were touched by his extraordinary gifts.

Apple has put up a short and touching note on their website as well as the image up top, the note says the following:

Steve Jobs: 1955-2011

Apple has lost a visionary and creative genius, and the world has lost an amazing human being. Those of us who have been fortunate enough to know and work with Steve have lost a dear friend and an inspiring mentor. Steve leaves behind a company that only he could have built, and his spirit will forever be the foundation of Apple.

If you would like to share your thoughts, memories, and condolences, please email rememberingsteve@apple.com

The family of Steve Jobs’ has since released the following statement:

Steve died peacefully today surrounded by his family.

In his public life, Steve was known as a visionary; in his private life, he cherished his family. We are thankful to the many people who have shared their wishes and prayers during the last year of Steve’s illness; a website will be provided for those who wish to offer tributes and memories.

We are grateful for the support and kindness of those who share our feelings for Steve. We know many of you will mourn with us, and we ask that you respect our privacy during our time of grief.

Apple CEO Tim Cook sent out the following email to Apple employees:

Team,
I have some very sad news to share with all of you. Steve passed away earlier today.

We are planning a celebration of Steve’s extraordinary life for Apple employees that will take place soon. If you would like to share your thoughts, memories and condolences in the interim, you can simply email rememberingsteve@apple.com.

No words can adequately express our sadness at Steve’s death or our gratitude for the opportunity to work with him. We will honor his memory by dedicating ourselves to continuing the work he loved so much.

Tim

There’s been an outpouring of words, here are a few notable citations from various industry leaders, competitors, and friends of Steve:

Bill Gates:

I’m truly saddened to learn of Steve Jobs’ death. Melinda and I extend our sincere condolences to his family and friends, and to everyone Steve has touched through his work.

Steve and I first met nearly 30 years ago, and have been colleagues, competitors and friends over the course of more than half our lives.

The world rarely sees someone who has had the profound impact Steve has had, the effects of which will be felt for many generations to come.

For those of us lucky enough to get to work with him, it’s been an insanely great honor. I will miss Steve immensely.

Google CEO Larry Page:

I am very, very sad to hear the news about Steve. He was a great man with incredible achievements and amazing brilliance. He always seemed to be able to say in very few words what you actually should have been thinking before you thought it. His focus on the user experience above all else has always been an inspiration to me. He was very kind to reach out to me as I became CEO of Google and spend time offering his advice and knowledge even though he was not at all well. My thoughts and Google’s are with his family and the whole Apple family.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg:

Steve, thank you for being a mentor and a friend. Thanks for showing that what you build can change the world. I will miss you.

NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg:

Tonight, America lost a genius who will be remembered with Edison and Einstein, and whose ideas will shape the world for generations to come.

US President Obama:

Michelle and I are saddened to learn of the passing of Steve Jobs. Steve was among the greatest of American innovators – brave enough to think differently, bold enough to believe he could change the world, and talented enough to do it.

By building one of the planet’s most successful companies from his garage, he exemplified the spirit of American ingenuity. By making computers personal and putting the internet in our pockets, he made the information revolution not only accessible, but intuitive and fun. And by turning his talents to storytelling, he has brought joy to millions of children and grownups alike. Steve was fond of saying that he lived every day like it was his last. Because he did, he transformed our lives, redefined entire industries, and achieved one of the rarest feats in human history: he changed the way each of us sees the world.

The world has lost a visionary. And there may be no greater tribute to Steve’s success than the fact that much of the world learned of his passing on a device he invented. Michelle and I send our thoughts and prayers to Steve’s wife Laurene, his family, and all those who loved him.

We’re all at a loss for words. Thank you Steve for everything, rest in peace.

EC Council Partners with U.S. Cyber Challenge to Sponsor National Cyber Quests Fall 2011Competition

(author unknown) — Sat, 17 Sep 2011 10:55:14 +0000

- The U.S. Cyber Challenge (USCC) today announced that the International Council of E-Commerce Consultants (EC-Council) has agreed to sponsor awards for the top three winners of the Cyber Quests Fall 2011 competition. Cyber Quests is a national online competition allowing participants to demonstrate their knowledge in a variety of information security disciplines.

The Quest features a quiz designed for an intermediate skill level and is based upon a network packet capture file that participants must analyze to identify and interpret various types of network and web application attacks. Winners will be determined based on who achieves the highest quiz score in the shortest amount of time. Registration is open through September 8.

EC-Council is sponsoring prizes for the first, second and third place winners that include EC-Council's flagship Certified Ethical Hacker (CEH) v7 training, Security+ training by Element K, official courseware, exam vouchers and passes for Hacker Halted, TakeDownCon and CAST cyber security conferences. EC-Council will also grant the first place winner with an automatic entry into the Global CyberLympics competition, an international team ethical hacking championship.

"We are tremendously grateful to the EC-Council for providing this support, which helps encourage the best and brightest to compete and enables further educational opportunities for the winners," said Karen S. Evans, U.S. Cyber Challenge National Director.

"EC-Council is proud to support the mission of the USCC Cyber Quests Competition to create the next generation of cyber warriors and we are happy to award the winners with cybersecurity education to help them take the next step in their security careers," said Jay Bavisi,Co-Founder and President of EC-Council.

USCC conducted its most recent Cyber Quests in April, with more than 800 students across 49 states and 400 schools participating. The Cyber Quests are part of several initiatives underway through USCC, which conducts national competitions and camps that enable individuals to develop their skills, gain access to advanced training, and achieve recognition with scholarships, internships and jobs.

ABOUT EC-COUNCIL:
The International Council of E-Commerce Consultants (EC-Council) is a member-based organization that certifies individuals in cyber security and e-commerce. It is the owner and developer of 20 security certifications, including Certified Ethical Hacker (CEH), Computer Hacking Forensics Investigator (CHFI) and Certified Security Analyst /Licensed Penetration Tester (ECSA/LPT). EC-Council has trained over 90,000 security professionals and certified more than 40,000 members. EC-Council's certification programs are offered by over 450 training centers across 87 countries. These certifications are recognized worldwide and have received endorsements from various government agencies including the U.S. Department of Defense via DoD 8570.01-M, the Montgomery GI Bill, National Security Agency (NSA) and the Committee on National Security Systems (CNSS). EC-Council also operates EC-Council University and the global series of Hacker Halted information security conferences. The global organization is headquartered in Albuquerque, New Mexico. For more information about EC-Council visit www.eccouncil.org.

# # #

About U.S. Cyber Challenge:
The mission of the U.S. Cyber Challenge (USCC), a division of the Center for Internet Security, is to significantly reduce the shortage in the cyber workforce by identifying, recruiting and placing the next generation of cyber security professionals. USCC's goal is to find 10,000 of America's best and brightest to fill the ranks of cyber security professionals where their skills can be of the greatest value to the nation.

...

9 Convenient Lies in Information Security

Haren Bhatt — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 05:45:00 +0000

Organizations sometimes “stretch the truth” regarding their ability to safeguard data, protect systems or offer other assurances related to information security. The crux of the problem is that implementing security is hard, as is explaining the effectiveness and roles of various controls. So we’re often left with promises or recommendations that can, at best, be seen as having an optimistic perspective on security.
Here are some of the statements that might often be considered lies, half-truths or idealistic simplifications…
Your data is secure because:
We use bank-level 128-bit AES encryption. Encryption by itself is insufficient, as there are numerous other ways in which data can be put at risk.We are compliant with applicable industry regulations. The compliance status demonstrates that a set of practices is being followed, but doesn’t address all necessary security measures.We have a security seal to demonstrate that we passed a security scan. Such scans are often limited in the weaknesses that they examine, potentially leaving the organization to numerous other attack vectors.
Protect yourself on-line by:
Not opening email attachments from suspicious senders. People often receive legitimate attachments from unknown senders, yet have no basis for determining what is suspicious.Not clicking on links in email messages. People are often in the hurry or are multitasking, which makes it too tempting to click a link rather than attempting to re-type it.Selecting a “strong” password. Opinions vary on what constitutes a “strong” password; also, by selecting one that’s hard to remember, people are more likely to reuse it across sites and applications, increasing the risk that one compromise might grant the attacker access to other resources.
Your data is safe with our employees because:
We conduct background checks. A “clean” record doesn’t guarantee that the person will exhibit ethical behavior in the future; also, many background checks are quite limited in their scope.We provide mandatory security awareness training. Many training programs don’t affect employees’ security-related behavior; also, participating in the session doesn’t imply that the employee absorbed the material.We have a security policy. Security policies seem to be rarely read and more rarely understood; also, the existence of security policies doesn’t imply that they are being followed.
When you see or hear the claims above, dig deeper to understand their meaning. When you hear security advice, ponder whether it is practical. If you are tempted to offer untruths to users or customers, make sure they are accurate and provide additional details where relevant and appropriate.

Are We Talking About ‘Cyberwar’ Or Massive Incompetence?

Mike Masnick — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 23:13:00 +0000

Rich Kulawiec points us to the news of Dillon Beresford of NSS Labs recently discovering (and revealing) that the Siemens control systems targeted by Stuxnet have massive security holes, including a hardcoded username/password combo ("basisk" for both, in case you were wondering). As Kulawiec noted: We have been treated, over the past few years, to an increasing chorus of hysteria and hype about "cyberwar". Some of that has come from governments eager to justify their increasing invasion of citizen privacy. Some of that has come from government contractors, eager to score more $100M do-nothing contracts. And since Stuxnet has come to light, it's been held up repeatedly as an example of the extreme cleverness of attackers.

But while Stuxnet is pretty darn clever, that's not the real problem. The real problem is that the incompetent morons at Siemens allowed this piece of crap to get out the door and into production environments. Thus the storyline isn't so much about the devious and subtle craft of Stuxnet's creators, as it is about the jaw-dropping negligence of Siemens: how could their QA miss this? How could they allow such a rudimentary, obvious mistake to pass?

We don't need to spend billions (or trillions) on elaborate cyberwar initiatives. We need to stop making fundamental mistakes. We need to stop doing the stupid things that we KNOW are stupid. But that kind of stuff isn't quite as sexy as declaring "cyberwar" and asking for billions of dollars from the government.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Microsoft’s Online Business For The Year: Over $2.5 Billion …Lost

MG Siegler — Sun, 24 Jul 2011 01:08:26 +0000

Microsoft had one hell of a year. Their best ever, in fact, from a revenue perspective. They’re no Apple, but hey, who is? Nearly $70 billion in revenue for what is primarily a software company is amazing. But the great numbers continue to mask one thing: the gaping, blood-soaked wound that is the Online Services Division.

Reading Microsoft’s press release on their earnings, you’d think everything is fantastic in the division. “Online Services Division revenue grew 17% for the fourth quarter and 15% for the full year, primarily driven by increases in search revenue.” Big growth! Awesome!

Wait a minute…

What Microsoft once again conveniently left out is any talk of how profitable the division is. That’s because it’s not profitable. Oh boy is it ever not profitable. The division lost $728 million for quarter. Remarkably, that’s the second-worst loss they’ve ever reported — only $4 million shy of the record $732 million loss in Q4 2009.

After I pointed out the loss last quarter, apologists were quick to jump on the “they just need more time” argument. Well, unbelievably, they continue moving the wrong way. Last quarter’s loss was an astounding $726 million. They somehow lost $2 million more this past quarter.

Even crazier, this is the 22nd consecutive quarter that Microsoft has reported an overall loss in the Online Services Division. There hasn’t been a profit reported since 2005.

Think about that for a second. 22nd consecutive quarters of losses. Revenues are increasing, but the losses are increasing faster. They’re spending well over two dollars for every dollar they earn.

And then there is the biggest number of all. For the year, the Online Services Division lost $2.557 billion.

Yes, Microsoft can afford these losses thanks to their other wildly profitable businesses. But at what point do they start to reconsider their online strategy?

Spending more than they’re earning has worked for them in the past with the Entertainment and Devices division, which is now increasingly profitable. But again, Online Services has been losing money for almost 6 straight years now. And this was the worst year yet. Things are getting worse, not better.

Windows, Business (Office), and Servers are essentially subsidizing Online Services (Entertainment still doesn’t come close to covering the loses Online Services is seeing). And while Business and Servers had strong years with good growth, the Windows business actually shrank from last year. What happens if the other businesses start to shrink too? Will Microsoft be able to continue to justify the Online loses?

For their part, Microsoft mainly blames the loses on the Yahoo deal:

OSD operating loss increased due to higher operating expenses, offset in part by increased revenue. Cost of revenue grew $641 million driven by costs associated with the Yahoo! search agreement and increased traffic acquisition costs. General and administrative expenses decreased $157 million or 60% due mainly to transition expenses in the prior year associated with the inception of the Yahoo! Commercial Agreement. Research and development increased $117 million or 11% due to increased headcount-related costs.

Don’t overlook another crazy stat: Microsoft was able to decrease general and administrative expenses by 60 percent for the year, and still lost more than ever.

The next few quarters will be interesting to watch. Microsoft paid $8.5 billion in May to buy Skype — another online business with a history of losing money. It’s Microsoft’s largest acquisition ever. And while the deal closed in late June in the U.S., it still has to be approved in Europe, which may take until October. Also interesting, Skype will not actually be a part of OSD, and will instead be its own division. Still, as an online-based division, everyone will be watching it alongside OSD.

Will the worst online startup in history finally be able to turn things around in the coming year? Or will they continue to bathe in blood?

The charts below by BusinessInsider really drive the point home.

Once Again, Using Industry’s Own Methodology Shows That Copyright Exceptions Contribute More To The Economy Than Copyright

Mike Masnick — Tue, 19 Jul 2011 16:04:07 +0000

The Copyright Industry absolutely loves to trot out its "numbers" about how much copyright contributes to the economy in terms of both dollars and jobs. The problem, as we've discussed, is that these studies have a counting problem. They simply list out every industry for which you can get copyright, then sum up all the revenue... and pretend that all of that revenue is because of copyright. This is, frankly, ridiculous and stupid. And yet, because Congress and reporters don't bother researching this, they take the numbers at face value. What pisses me off about things like this is that it automatically counts my own revenue as being in support of copyright laws today, when I'm obviously anything but that. Even worse, the industry uses this argument to claim that they need more and stricter copyright laws, as if there's any causal relationship between that and the revenue in those industries.

For a few years now, CCIA has countered these claims from the copyright industry with its own study, using the exact same methodology, but counting up how much "exceptions to copyright" contribute to the economy, and showing that it's actually much larger than copyright. It's not hard to figure out that they're doing this to point out just how ridiculous the numbers from the copyright industry are. What's really funny is when totally clueless copyright maximalists, such as the folks at The Copyright Alliance, attack the methodology of the CCIA fair use/exceptions report, not realizing that they're attacking their own methodology at the same time. Amazingly, after having been called out on this, the Copyright Alliance still tosses out its own version of the study with the methodology that its own "founder" debunked when it was in a different report. In fact, despite the fact that we totally mocked the Copyright Alliance for this last year... this year they're right back at it mocking the CCIA's methodology. And, it looks like the MPAA has joined them in whining about the methodology. Apparently both groups are so clueless they don't even realize they're mocking their own methodology.

To drive this point home, the MPAA complains that the CCIA's report includes the movie industry as part of its "fair use industries." Indeed. But the studies that MPAA uses includes the exact same methodology, and includes companies like my own as a "copyright industry." The whole point -- which the MPAA and Copyright Alliance are apparently too clueless to recognize -- is that both methodologies are totally bogus and significantly overcount, but why is it that the MPAA gets to continue using its totally bogus study results, while slamming CCIA for using the identical methodology? It would be funny, if politicians didn't repeatedly fall for this crap.

Thankfully, not all of them do. When CCIA released its latest version of this copyright exceptions report showing, yet again, just how much exceptions to copyright law contribute to the economy and jobs using the exact same methodology as the famed "copyright" report. And, once again, if we use this methodology, copyright exceptions contribute more to the economy. The numbers are also growing really rapidly. So, based on the Copyright Industry's own logic... shouldn't we be adding more exceptions to copyright law?

The other good news is that Rep. Jared Polis showed up at the event where CCIA released the report and noted how it was important, and spoke out against PROTECT IP. We keep hearing from supporters of the law that only Rep. Lofgren and Senator Wyden are worried about PROTECT IP, but we're learning that a growing number of our elected representatives are, indeed, concerned about the law.

Honestly, I think that any time the Copyright Industry tosses out its numbers, it should be required that people point out CCIA's numbers as well. If you see anyone repeating the Copyright Industry's claims about how much copyright "contributes to the economy," demand that the same politicians and reporters also use CCIA's exceptions to copyright numbers which, again, result from the identical methodology.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Oops: Dropbox Left All User Accounts Wide Open For Four Hours This Weekend

Mike Masnick — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 10:39:48 +0000

Dropbox's security has been under increased scrutiny lately, after some security researchers claimed that some of its security practices were questionable. So, it was probably the worst time possible for the company to have a "programmer's error," leaving all Dropbox accounts completely wide open to anyone for four hours on Sunday. Apparently, during that period of time, you could log into anyone's account with any password. Just type in a random string of gibberish and you're in. Not surprisingly, the company is apologizing and investigating how this happened. At the very least, it seems like a good reason to explore alternatives if you're doing remote storage.

Of course, this also raises interesting points concerning the big question of "cloud" security. Many people have suggested that relying on some third party -- such as Dropbox -- is inherently insecure. However, that assumes that an individual who goes a different route would be able to create a more secure system on their own. I'm sure that's true for some people, but it might not be the case for the everyday user. In the long run, you would hope that these remote service providers can implement stronger security, so that individuals don't have to. But, in the short run, I wouldn't be surprised to see more such stories of less-than-optimal security being exposed at these kinds of service providers.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

El poder adquisitivo de Apple a final de trimestre: 70 mil millones de dólares

Miguel López — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 16:13:25 +0000

Esconded los saldos de vuestras cuentas corrientes, porque tengáis el dinero que tengáis va a parecer calderilla con los números que vamos a comentar aquí. Durante las últimas ruedas de prensa de resultados financieros de Apple ya hemos oído hablar de la gran reserva de dinero que se asegura la compañía, por si le diera por adquirir alguna otra empresa. Hace algo de tiempo Steve Jobs presumía porque Apple era una compañía de cincuenta mil millones de dólares… ¡tonterías! Todo indica que Apple tendrá nada menos que setenta mil millones de dólares en sus cuentas al terminar este trimestre fiscal.

Repito: setenta-mil-millones-de-dólares. Lo que vienen a ser unos 48,85 millones de euros al cambio actual. Puede que con la crisis económica estemos acostumbrados a oír estas cantidades de dinero en forma de rescates bancarios, pero en el mundo empresarial es una bestialidad. Para que nos hagamos una idea, Apple podría comprar tranquilamente Nokia, RIM, LG, Motorola y Sony Ericsson. Y no separadas, no, todas al mismo tiempo como quien compra ingredientes para hacer un gazpacho.

Lógicamente, eso es algo que no va a pasar por no tener sentido (aunque de ocurrir Apple acabaría con gran parte de su competencia directa de un plumazo). Pero es un buen ejemplo del poder que tiene ahora mismo Apple. Sólo hace falta que alguna compañía se convierta en una amenaza para que en Cupertino empiecen a pensar en una adquisición y quitarse el problema de encima. No está nada mal tener esa cantidad de dinero a modo de seguro. Y si el progreso de Apple sigue el mismo ritmo, hay analistas que afirman que el valor de Apple podría superar al de la industria de telefonía móvil al completo.

Vía | AppleInsider
Imagen | Gisela Giardino
En Applesfera | ¿Qué ha querido decir Steve Jobs con eso de “creemos que hay una o más oportunidades estratégicas”?

Why Propping Up Old Business Models Is Bad For The Economy And Bad For Innovation

Mike Masnick — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 05:06:00 +0000

Certainly a common enough theme around these parts is the effort of old companies with legacy business models to do everything in their power (often through regulatory capture and other political tricks) to retain their market position by regulating in a specific way. This means regulations that empower legacy firms specifically, or by outlawing and/or limiting disruptive upstarts. All too often, these firms succeed in convincing politicians (and even the press and some portion of the public) that their own potential failures mean the failure of a larger industry as a whole. And yet, that's almost never the case. In fact, the protectionism often does the exact opposite of that, in that it prevents the necessary innovations from flourishing, thereby limiting an industry and, at times, making it uncompetitive with other industries in other countries.

A recent Planet Money episode discussed this in talking to economist Tim Harford about his new book, Adapt, which talks about how important failure is for economic growth and innovation. This should intuitively make sense for many regular Techdirt readers, since we make this point, in a different manner, quite frequently.

In the Planet Money episode, they do a "walking tour of failure in New York," looking at things like the Gutenberg bible, which many credit with kicking off a revolution in printing, but was a giant commercial failure for Johannes Gutenberg, who put up the money for it, but couldn't find the buyers (yes, for the first printed edition of the best selling book of all time). Elsewhere, they talk about the failure of Woolworth, which had been an early retail innovator, being one of the first retailers to realize that putting goods out where customers could see them and touch them, rather than cramming it all behind a counter, was a good idea. But, eventually, others out-innovated Woolworth as well. In many ways, this reminds me of the book Copycats by Oded Shenkar, which we spoke about last year and which had plenty of similar stories.

Some of the discussion also reminded me of our discussion on the series of economic studies that have shown that people changing jobs is often a key indicator of economic growth because it helps the spread of ideas and innovations faster across the economy. While that might not seem to directly impact the question of "failure," Harford mentions the research of economist Randall Morck, who found that (and I'm paraphrasing from Harford's brief summary of Morck's work) in places where there is greater turnover of big companies failing and upstarts taking their place, there is greater economic growth. I have to admit being unaware of Morck's work previously, but now have it on my list to dig in and check it out. I can definitely see a connection here.

Big companies often get stagnant, focusing less on innovation and more on protecting a market. In the Clayton Christensen world of the Innovator's Dilemma, they focus on incremental innovations and market protectionism. And, as Andy Kessler noted in his most recent book, the innovators, who get around those things and unleash value, are often derided as thieves and criminals for undermining established business models. But what comes out of those upstart efforts is, generally, much better for the consumer. And, on top of that, the collapse of those big firms often allows many of the folks, who did have good ideas and knowledge within those firms, to spread out and to join the more innovative upstarts, which will actually implement and execute on those good ideas, rather than be stymied by bosses who don't want to undercut the old business models.

This is why we should always be wary of efforts by politicians to protect jobs, companies, industries and business models. These efforts may come from a reasonable place -- in the belief that it's for the best to "protect" such a large company. But history has shown over and over again the value of creative destruction and disruptive innovation. While it may take down old legacy players, what rises in its place is almost always better for everyone.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

How Important Is It To Preserve Our Digital Heritage?

Jeroen van Rijn — Sat, 04 Jun 2011 01:43:00 +0000

Having recently been part of an effort to preserve videos on Google Video, in light of its announced shutdown, it's made me more aware how brittle our current culture is, with many many artifacts available only in digital form. There are conservation efforts such as the aforementioned one, part of a larger group called Archive Team. Google changed its mind and promised to keep Google Video online and try to move as much as possible to YouTube where it has permission from the original uploader. This is, obviously, a win for the archivists, who kept the effort going just the same and are still in the process of uploading all of Google Video to archive.org.

Contrast this with Friendster, where the Archive Team project was unable to save everything before the end of May, when everything was set to be deleted. Much has been downloaded and it will still give a good picture of what this early social network was like. Similarly, the Archive Team was able to rescue much, but not all of GeoCities, before Yahoo shut that down last year, releasing its collection as a massive 1 TB bittorrent file.

Now you may ask yourself is Friendster (or even GeoCities) worth saving? Answering that question purely myself, I'd say no, but I have no connection with those sites. Looking at the question however from the perspective of people who have spent many hours building these profiles and interacting with each other, I can see there's clearly value there to those who used them. Answering instead as someone with a deep interest in history, it's not for us to say what will eventually prove worth saving. Instead, that's something for the historians, archeologists, sociologists and other interested parties in the future to decide. But they can't do that if the information isn't even there.

How often have we not wished more of a particular point in our history had been preserved? Ironically many of the analog writings of our past are in a better state than some of our digital ones, even when it's often pointed out how easy it is to make bit-perfect copies of something in this day and age.

All of this, leads me to ask the following questions: Do you agree the digital aspects of our culture should be better preserved?
Should we have, maybe even one on each continent or in each country, a modern Library of Alexandria? (identical copies in different places to prevent 'a fire' from destroying it)
What would such a world-wide archival effort look like, technologically?
What should we do about copyrights and patents (and DRM) that might get in the way of preserving our heritage?
How do we go about archiving software for a computer that's available only in a museum, to preserve interactive access?
What about the proliferation of file formats? Do we transform everything into a canonical form where we can, or do we store the original along with software to interpret?
I think we owe it to ourselves that this generation doesn't look like a black hole when viewed from the future, and by extension, I'd like to make it easier on future historians to learn about us than it has been for us to learn about previous societies (e.g. Sumerians).

I'll start off by saying that though little personal correspondence has been preserved of earlier times, we should recognize the right to privacy and any such posited archive would be allowed to include private communications only if you explicitly opted in. Valuable though these are for historians, if we preserve as much as we can of the digital domain, enough can be inferred from context that this would be an unwarranted intrusion.

But what about the wider issue of preservation of public content that can be wiped out by shutting off a power switch?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story